Message-Id: <199509242158.RAA27918@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:38:12 +0300
Reply-To: Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>
Organization: Institute for Commercial Engineering
Subject:      Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199509241830.VAA25065@feast.fe.msk.ru>; from
              "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:12:16 EDT
Status: OR

coi

> > > i le do se ciska na mutce nitcu le nu cikre
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I haven't found this pattern in The Draft Reference Grammar. :-(
>
> I think that is because this would be explained in the paper about
> relative clauses, which is not yet done. I think John Cowan will have

Thank you, I have found example in "summary", it seems clear now.

But I have more questions...

I'm to translate sentense "The lojban word 'valsi' is gismu" into lojban.

My first attempt was: {zo valsi poi lojbo valsi cu gismu}.

But back-translations seems like "'valsi', the lojban word, is gismu" -
not exactly the same. Really "lojban word 'valsi'" seems very like to
"plgs" and I feel it must be translated as tanru.

So my second attempt was: {le lojbo valsi me zo valsi cu gismu}.

And now the question: what version is right? If both, what is better and
why? And what is the difference between them?

And another question: may be {noi} should be instead of {poi} in first
example? I don't catch difference between "restrictive" and "incidental"
in this case. The only idea I have is that {zo valsi noi lojbo valsi cu
gismu} can be translated like "'valsi', as a lojban word, is gismu" (and
as an Esperanto word it is verb). Does it all seems like truth?

co'o mi'e kir
--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@fe.msk.ru> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
<http://www.fe.msk.ru/~slobin/> `it means just what I choose it to mean'